More handpicked essays just for you.
Nurse patients right to privacy and confidentiality
Fourth amendment analysis
A court case dealing with the fourth amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Nurse patients right to privacy and confidentiality
In 1981, an official at a hospital, suspected improprieties by Dr. Ortega’s in his management of a residency program. Hospital officials conducted an investigation, which involved numerous searches of his office and the seizure of a several of items as evidence. The evidence was later used at California State Personnel Board proceedings, to impeach the credibility of witnesses that testified on behalf of Dr. Ortega's. Dr. Ortega later filed suit in federal court alleging that the search conducted by hospital officials violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court made a summary judgment, and ruled the search was proper. Dr. Ortega appealed, to the circuit court; it ruled that the search did violate the Fourth Amendment. The appeal court
In the case Morale v. Grigel, 422 F.Supp 988 (1976), the plaintiff James Morale, who is a student at New Hampshire Technical Institute, room was entered and searched by officials representing the dorm. There was no probable cause for them to enter his room, and while there they seized what they alleged to be “purple haze”. The court ruled that a check or search of a student's dormitory room is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless NHTI can show that the search furthers its functioning as an educational institution. The search must further an interest that is separate and distinct from that served by New Hampshire's criminal law. Obviously, administrative checks of the rooms for health hazards are permissible pursuant to the school's
Facts: According to the case Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati (1986), an Ohio physician was being investigated for fraud. During the course of the investigation, it was necessary to interview two employees from his practice. Since the employees did not respond to a subpoena, a warrant was issued and the Sheriffs were sent out to the physician’s office where the employees also worked. Upon arrival, the Sheriffs were not allowed to enter the area where the two employees
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
The court for this case found that the search and seizure of the stereo violated the fourth and fourteenth Amendments. The Decision was 6 votes for Hicks and 3 votes against.
While working at the OB-GYN department in the hospital, Dr. Vandall, as a Vice Chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, learned that another employee of the hospital, Dr. Margaret Nordell was engaged in a level of treatment that was unethical and violated accepted standards of care. It was his duty to the hospital and to the patients, to monitor the competence of his staff members. Although he tried to take the proper steps to deal with it within the hospital, he ended up reporting this to the North Dakota Board of Medical Examiners. It was concluded by the Board that the treatment of Dr. Nordell was gross negligence and they suspended her license to practice medicine.
There are many ethical paradigms through which humans find guidance and justification for their own actions. In the case of contractarianism, citizens of a state are entitled to human rights, considered to be unalienable, and legal rights, which are both protected by the state. As Spinello says, “The problem with most rights-based theories is that they do not provide adequate criteria for resolving practical disputes when rights are in conflict” (14). One case that supports Spinello is the case of Marlise Munoz, a brain-dead pregnant thirty-three year old, who was wrongly kept on life support for nearly two months at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas. Misinterpretation of the Texas Advance Directives Act by John Peter Smith Hospital led to the violation of the contractarian paradigm. Although the hospital was following the directive in order to maintain legal immunity for its hospital staff, the rights of the family were violated along with the medical fundamental principle to “first, do no harm.”
Domestic Violence is a world-wide problem but in America it is amplified with the ready availability of guns as in this article regarding Dr. Albert Lambert of Florida. Dr. Albert Lambert purchased a gun October 6, 2013 and a gun cleaning kit for a 22 caliber ten (10) days prior to the murder of Kimberly Lindsey (WPBF.com). This brutal act of domestic violence leaves three children without a mother and subsequently a father. This incident has flooded the radio, newspapers, television and internet since the ordeal started in West Palm Beach, Florida on October 27, 2013 and ended on November 4, 2013 in Miami as Sheriff’s deputies discovered Lambert’s sister and boyfriend removing Lambert’s corpse from her sisters Miami home upon their arrival to arrest and charge Dr. Lambert for the death of his ex-wife Kimberly Lindsey.
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Redding became a starting case against unconstitutional searches of students where a girl had her backpack searched in the assistant principal 's office. After the official searched her bag, the school nurse’s office was her next destination, so the nurse and the administrative assistant could search her clothes and instructed her to shake out the elastic of her bra and underwear (Carpenter 86-87). The tragic part about this case is that it is not the first or final time a similar event has occurred. In the case of Jane Doe, “...or so she was called in this case…”, a student of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas filed a case against her school (Dowling-Sendor 46). Dowling-Sendor tells of how the school regularly conducted searches of book bags and purses, and police officials would take any contraband found. Then any items found would become evidence for a prosecution (46). When school officials searched Jane’s bag, they recovered a container full of Marijuana, and its purpose was to convict Jane Doe on a drug misdemeanor charge. After being charged with this, Jane appealed to the 8th circuit because the District Court first dismissed her case. The court ruled in her favor in a two to one decision, claiming the search caused a violation of her rights. She had every reason to win because school officials search students at this school on a regular basis, and it is
The fourth amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police had evidence that DLK was growing marijuana in his house, so they used a thermal imager and found a significant amount of heat. The police took this evidence to a judge who gave them a warrant to search inside DLK’s house for the marijuana and when they did search his house the police found the plants and arrested DLK. The controversy surrounding this case is whether or not it was constitutional for the police to use the thermal imager of DLK’s house without a search warrant. The government did not need a warrant to use a thermal imager on the outside of DLK’s house because once the heat left DLK’s house it was out in public domain, the thermal imager could not see any details within DLK’s house, and the police already had evidence to expect DLK was growing the marijuana plants in his house.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
had the pleasure to personally interview Dr. Ebenezer Blavo; a former lecturer at the University of Ghana, and a United Nations representative of social work. Significantly, his main vision is service for humanity. He was selected to be leader, and he acquired leadership skills by taking courses in leadership at the university. Dr. Blavo is both a transformational leader and servant leader who is concerned about the wellbeing of others, and demonstrates effective listening skills, empathy and healing (Savage-Austin & Honeycutt, 2011).
Despite the fact that there is a strict Code of Conduct of Pharmacy in the United Kingdom, the problems of sexual boundaries being crossed between doctors and patients is still happening. This report aims to provide information about different types of relationship between doctors and patients which can lead to unethical sexual behaviour between the two parties. The findings shows that this case is common when there is an unbalance power between doctors and patients and when the patients attend a long and continuous meeting sessions with the doctors. In order to tackle this issue, there must be a strict line drawn between the doctors and the patient to maintain the professional relationship between the two.
When officers arrived at the living area of Johnson and his roommate, Benner Brewer, they did not have a warrant to search Johnson’s area, which violated his 4th amendment rights against a warrantless search.
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.